Genetic Counseling Workforce Research Articles

Genetic counseling workforce diversity, inclusion, and capacity in Australia and New Zealand

PurposeTo understand diversity, inclusion, and capacity of genetic counselors (GCs) in Australasia (Australia and New Zealand). MethodsIndividuals with or working toward a GC qualification in Australasia were invited to complete an online survey, between November 2022 and March 2023. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, 1-sample proportion z-tests, 2-sample z-tests, and χ2 tests. Qualitative data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. ResultsA total of 252 participants responded to the survey. A subset analysis of respondents residing in Australia demonstrated a lack of representation across various characteristics including sex, relationship status, caregiver status, location, country of birth, Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander identity, language, and religion. Analysis of the full data set demonstrated that most respondents also perceived that the workforce was not representative across gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability. Respondents provided examples of existing inclusive practice. They also suggested workforce needs, such as promoting education and employment for minority communities, more visible diversity, accessible services for clients, and professional development for GCs. Using survey and reference data, we estimated approximately 346 full-time equivalent GCs working in clinical practice in Australasia. ConclusionOur study provides a first step in illuminating GC workforce changes needed in Australasia regarding diversity, inclusion, and capacity. The survey may be of use internationally, enabling other countries to understand these issues within their jurisdiction, and supporting the international community in addressing these challenges.

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) in genomic variant interpretation: An innovative education strategy for the growing genetic counselor workforce.

The growth in genomic testing in healthcare requires a highly trained specialist workforce to ensure evidence based clinical germline variant interpretation. Genetic counselors form a core part of the clinical genomics multidisciplinary team (MDT) and represent a growing workforce participating in variant interpretation from data analysis to the patient consultation. Standardized, high-quality variant interpretation training for Genetic Counselors has historically been ad hoc and variable, with existing programs lacking capacity to reach the entire workforce. To address the requirement for scalable variant interpretation training for genomics healthcare professionals (HCPs), two Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) were developed. We analyzed the data from 17 Genetic counselors, as part of an evaluation cohort completing the first run of these MOOCs. Overall genetic counselors enjoyed the courses, felt they were clinically relevant and would recommend them to colleagues. Common challenges amongst the genetic counseling workforces included utilizing relevant databases and finding time in the workday to complete training. These findings suggest MOOCs could be an acceptable option to ensure a consistent and transferrable high standard of training, complimentary to existing curricula. They also hold the potential to facilitate large-scale education to update the genetic counseling workforce when changes in variant interpretation guidance occur.

Shifts in the genetic counseling workforce highlight a need for laboratory fieldwork experience for genetic counseling trainees.

As the genetic counseling workforce experiences an increase in genetic counselors (GCs) in non-direct patient care roles, it is essential that genetic counseling students are trained in these settings. The Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC) standards regarding laboratory exposure have evolved over time, but laboratory fieldwork experience continues to remain a suggestion for a diversified setting. As more trainees seek laboratory exposure and an increasing number of new graduates opt for laboratory positions, learning firsthand from GCs employed in this setting is a valuable experience that should be available to all trainees. Historically, laboratory educational offerings consisted of onsite rotations for students from local training programs focused on understanding diagnostic testing methodologies and shadowing GCs. Through the years, multiple laboratories have expanded their curriculums to expose students to variant interpretation and report writing, research, client services, marketing, and product development. Alongside the growth of laboratory rotation curriculum grew opportunities for remote rotations. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, GeneDx offered remote education options including both individualized rotations and a webinar series. These offerings expanded due to the pandemic coupled with increased demand and have positive implications for future trainees. The evolution of the rotation also included conscious efforts to incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion into the curriculum, as well as to improved accessibility to laboratory rotations. Notably, there are inconsistencies in laboratory rotation curricula and requirements, and a standardized evaluation and definition of competencies are lacking. ACGC guidelines defining common core concepts required from laboratory rotations would help ensure students receive an equitable minimum skill set, regardless of training site. Stakeholders in GC education should collaborate to enhance the experiences of future trainees and provide the skills needed by a workforce shifting to remote work and increasing numbers of non-direct patient-facing laboratory roles. Drawing upon our years of experience, GeneDx aims to actively contribute to discussions around these questions. Alongside other laboratories and training programs, we hope to foster further innovation surrounding the training needs of our future GC colleagues. This educational innovation illustrates an approach to helping genetic counseling students achieve competencies related to lab-based roles.

Insights into genetic assistant practice and the workforce in North America.

Genetic assistant positions are now widely integrated in genetic services to address genetic counselor shortages and ultimately improve efficiency. While over 40% of genetic counselors report working with a genetic assistant ("NSGC Professional Status Survey: Work Environment," 2022), there is limited information about the genetic assistant workforce. The present study surveyed 164 genetic assistants and 139 individuals with experience working with genetic assistants (specifically genetic counselors, residents, geneticists, and administrative staff). Information was collected about genetic assistant demographics, positions, roles and responsibilities, and career paths. The data revealed that the genetic assistant workforce is demographically similar to the genetic counselor workforce and that most genetic assistants intend to pursue a career in genetic counseling. The genetic assistant positions were heterogeneous in terms of the roles and responsibilities assigned, even when separated by work setting. Lastly, participants reported that there were at least 144 genetic assistants across their institutions, a number that has likely grown since the time of the survey. The findings from this study highlight important opportunities for future research and focus, especially development of a scope of practice and competencies for genetic assistants, as well as the potential to use genetic assistant positions as an avenue to improve diversity within the genetic counseling workforce.

Development of a web-based, theory-guided narrative intervention for women at elevated risk for breast cancer

ObjectiveTo describe the development of a web-based, theory-guided narrative intervention that replaces conventional pre-test genetic counseling for women at elevated breast cancer risk. MethodsWe used an iterative process that was guided by health behavior theory and feedback from multiple stakeholder groups including: 1) content input from genetic experts; 2) study team input; 3) review of video storyboards, video example, study logo, recruitment materials, post-test patient preference counseling survey, and additional study surveys; 4) video series development; and 5) intervention review and finalization of study-related materials. ResultsThe intervention is patient-centered providing convenience and an opportunity for an individual’s preferences for post-test counseling delivery. The intervention’s efficacy is being determined in a randomized controlled trial compared to conventional genetic counseling for adherence to recommended guidelines and changes in knowledge, perception of breast cancer risk, breast cancer-specific worry, and satisfaction with counseling. ConclusionIf efficacious, the intervention may improve the delivery of the genetic testing and counseling process, inform best practices, and reduce the genetic counseling workforce burden. Practice ImplicationsThe developed intervention has the potential to improve the genetic testing and counseling experience for women at elevated risk for breast cancer, inform best practices, and reduce genetic counseling workforce burden.

Analysis of the reported use of practice-based competencies by North American genetic counselors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Genetic counseling services changed due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Many genetic counselors (GCs) moved from in‐person to telehealth services. Others were redeployed by choice or necessity, using their expertise to provide COVID‐19 care and education. For some, their employment status changed due to budgetary constraints or decreasing referrals. This study surveyed North American GCs to assess the relative use of genetic counseling Practice‐Based Competencies (PBCs) as a proxy for the skills used during the first wave of the pandemic, whether GCs were in their current role or in new or adjusted roles. A secondary aim was to determine whether GCs believe their training should be refocused in view of the workforce shifts posed by the pandemic. The survey comprised closed‐ and open‐ended questions and was completed in full by 97 respondents. The study population was representative of the general genetic counseling workforce in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, age, and practice area when compared to the National Society of Genetic Counselors 2020 Professional Status Survey. Most participants (97.9%) indicated that the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in a change to their work, and 89.7% used at least one PBC at a different frequency than before the pandemic. The most significant change was the adaptation of genetic counseling skills for varied service delivery models: 83.5% of respondents indicated that their roles and responsibilities moved to a remote setting and/or utilized telehealth. The majority of participants felt competent using the PBCs during the pandemic. Major themes that emerged from the qualitative data were as follows: (a) adaptation of service delivery, (b) translation of genetic counseling skills, and (c) provision of psychosocial support. This study highlights practice changes for GCs due to the COVID‐19 pandemic as well as the increased use of, and need for focused training in, varied service delivery models.

Genetic counseling student rotations in industry: How COVID‐19 magnified the urgency for virtual learning options in diverse training settings

The COVID‐19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges worldwide that required rapid adaptation and transformation across the entire healthcare system. Graduate medical training programs across all specialties have moved to rapidly adjust to the virtual landscape. This created a unique opportunity for genetic counselors who work in industry and within diagnostic laboratories to develop internship and rotation programs that can be offered virtually to meet the needs of genetic counseling training programs. Myriad Genetics, Inc., was contacted by numerous graduate programs in genetic counseling beginning in March 2020 requesting the opportunity for their students to participate in remote laboratory‐based rotations. As a result of these requests, a working group of genetic counselors across Myriad came together to adapt existing experiences to fully remote formats and develop new remote‐based opportunities for students. We describe our experience of expanding genetic counseling student rotations during the COVID‐19 pandemic with the goal of providing examples of remote learning experiences that may be applicable to other diagnostic laboratory industry‐based rotations for genetic counseling students. In 2020, a total of 59 second‐year genetic counseling students, from 21 different genetic counseling training programs, participated in one of five different virtual experiences. Furthermore, two new rotation experiences were created to increase capacity and highlight diversity of industry roles. Genetic counselors in industry are uniquely positioned to provide both remote training opportunities for genetic counseling students and exposure to the variety of roles that genetic counselors can occupy. Increasing the exposure to these roles is important as the genetic counseling workforce continues to expand and diversify, and it is imperative among all programs to enable access to these opportunities.

Changes to the genetic counseling workforce as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID‐19 pandemic has affected all aspects of our lives. The full impact of the pandemic is still unfolding and will take years to fully understand. This longitudinal study followed a sample of 189 genetic counselors from June to November of 2020, starting with an online retrospective baseline survey of pre‐COVID‐19 functioning and continuing with a monthly online survey (average retention = 89.2%) to assess changes in self‐reported stress, employment status, billing practices, self‐efficacy, and their use of telehealth. Participants were recruited from specific states representing geographic diversity with publicly available databases of contact information as well as social media. The sample was largely reflective of the professional demographics reported in the 2020 Professional Status Survey (PSS). Comparisons were made between the PSS, baseline assessment of pre‐COVID‐19 status, June, and November data. Genetic counselor workload did not significantly change in terms of hours worked from baseline to November, though patients served per week dropped initially before returning to pre‐COVID‐19 levels. Genetic counselors were increasingly working remotely and supervising students less frequently in November compared to pre‐COVID‐19 baseline. Approximately 50% of the sample were unable to bill for services throughout the study period, with billing practices not changing during this time. Approximately 40% experienced a negative employment change in June, which dropped to ~10% in November. Personal and family stress levels were elevated during the study period, while financial stress increased from baseline to June it returned to pre‐COVID‐19 levels by November. Self‐efficacy for common genetic counseling skills decreased from baseline to June but returned to baseline levels by November. The results suggest the workforce faced transitions but has rebounded in most areas studied. The pandemic highlighted pre‐existing billing issues, and the current billing structures were not able to shift in the face of practice transitions. The long‐term implications of the pandemic remain to be seen, but the results indicate returns toward baseline data in most areas with the exceptions of supervision, personal and family stress, and billing.

Preparing the genetic counseling workforce for the future in Australasia.

Current genetic counseling students will graduate into a workforce involving more opportunities, diversity, and uncertainty than any previous generation. Preparing the future genetic counseling workforce is a dynamic challenge, both for the profession and for educators. The dominance of the medical model in the state funded Australian healthcare system creates a power imbalance between doctors and other health professionals. As a result, professional regulation to protect the public from harm in line with the United States, the UK, and Canada only became mandatory in 2019. Professional regulation has the additional benefit of enhancing professional standing and autonomy, enabling genetic counselors to help shape the future of genetic health care in Australia and New Zealand. Within this rapidly evolving environment, we are establishing a new Masters' program and building a discipline of genetic counseling, working alongside other allied health professionals. Our program involves synchronous and asynchronous learning, greater accessibility, flexibility and, as we have learned in 2020, reduction in disruption during a global pandemic. In this program, we foreground the inherent knowledge, skills, and values of genetic counseling, shifting the focus from provision of genetic and genomic tests, to educating competent, person-centered, research enabled and culturally safe genetic counselors. As educators, we have a responsibility to prepare students to embrace the uncertainties, challenges, and potential of the genomic era, to seize the many possibilities that lie ahead, and to expand their thinking and vision. We ask our students to be courageous, to step into a deep exploration of their own identity, beliefs, understanding, and experiences of oppression, power, and privilege. We are pushing boundaries, and challenging ourselves and our students to remain always open to possibilities. Equipping students with open eyes and listening ears may be the single most important thing we can do to prepare the genetic counseling workforce of the future to provide the best possible care.

The Canadian genetic counseling workforce: Perspectives from employers and recent graduates.

There is a lack of literature devoted to the Canadian genetic counseling workforce. Current and prospective genetic counseling students, graduates, employers, programs, and funding agencies remain largely uninformed of trends in the job market. The purpose of this study was to investigate the employment experiences of recent Canadian genetic counseling graduates and employers of genetic counselors (GCs) in Canada. An online survey was distributed to Canadians who had graduated from North American genetic counseling programs from 2014 to 2018 and to employers with experience hiring patient-facing genetic counselors from 2016 to 2018. Quantitative data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and, where appropriate, logistic regression. Qualitative data were reviewed to illustrate and support the quantitative data. Half of the employer responders (11/22) reported hiring more or many more genetic counselors compared to 3years ago (2016), and a majority (n=19, 86%) reported a desire to hire at least one more genetic counselor if funding were available. Most graduates (45/70, 64%) reported securing employment before graduation, 33% (n=23) within 6months of graduation, and no one taking longer than 1year. For recent graduates, location was the most important factor when looking for work, and those who chose to work in Canada experienced significantly more challenges gaining employment as opposed to those who worked internationally (p=0.03). The specialties in highest demand for genetic counselors and the most common areas of practice for recent graduates included adult general genetics, prenatal genetics, and cancer genetics. Overall, our findings suggest that there is a growth of employment opportunities in Canada and more employer-reported need for clinical genetic counselors; however, there is a lack of funding to support this expansion.

A narrative literature review: Growing the workforce through increased fieldwork capacity in genetic counseling training programs.

In response to mounting concerns regarding a perceived shortage of genetic counselors, the Genetic Counselor Workforce Working Group (WFWG) was established in 2013 to identify barriers to growth of the genetic counseling workforce. After completing a workforce analysis and confirming a shortage, the WFWG convened a strategic planning session in 2017 to identify goals and strategies that would increase the number of certified counselors to meet the current and future workforce demands and ensure access to genetic counselor services. Subcommittees were formed and charged with achieving assigned goals; one such subcommittee included a curriculum working group to build a dynamic and effective educational infrastructure to increase the number of genetic counselors graduated from accredited training program. This paper reports of progress of the WFWG Curriculum Subcommittee toward achieving this goal through a narrative literature review that identifies innovative education methods that help to increase capacity of fieldwork training, both in genetic counseling training programs and in other health professions. Of the five thematic areas identified in this study, four are analyzed for insight into building clinical capacity: systems/infrastructure, rotation structure/models, skill building, and novel techniques. While additional studies are needed to establish best practices in these thematic areas, there are several take-aways that training programs can begin to utilize as they look to expand training opportunities. While growth of the genetic counseling workforce will continue to be a long-term issue, programs should begin to think creatively and innovatively about how to reach beyond traditional fieldwork training formats to build capacity. The strategies explored in this paper offer feasible and untapped solutions that can help support efforts to establish a sustainable genetic counseling workforce.

Geographical analysis of the distribution of certified genetic counselors in the United States.

The number of certified genetic counselors (CGCs) in the genetic counseling workforce has increased over the past few decades as the number of training programs increases and CGCs expand into new patient-facing and non-patient-facing roles. Few studies have explored the distribution of CGCs across the United States. We sought to identify the U.S. geographical regions with the highest number of CGCs and those regions where the physical presence of CGCs is sparser. Deidentified city, state, and ZIP code information for each CGC in the United States were obtained from the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) database. A countrywide analysis of the distribution of CGCs was completed using geographic information system (GIS) mapping software. The data were organized into U.S. metropolitan or micropolitan statistical areas, if applicable, and analyzed by CGC per capita. We included a total of 4,554 data points (92.2%) in the analysis. Results showed there is one CGC for every 71,842 people nationwide. Of 3,141 total counties (or county equivalents) in the United States, 535 counties had at least one CGC (17.0%). The majority (98.7%) of CGCs live or work within metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), which are defined by this study as geographical areas with greater than 50,000 people. Of the MSAs with a CGC, approximately half have more than one CGC per 100,000 people. These results are consistent with the overall distribution of the U.S. population. We believe that the MSAs with the most CGCs per capita are due to associations with specific institutions, that is, genetic counseling training programs, health system headquarters, or genetic laboratories. Although the present study cannot draw definite conclusions regarding direct patient care services provided by CGCs, it does provide a snapshot of current CGC distribution within the country. Knowing the distribution of CGCs provides a tool to conduct further workforce analyses to determine the number of CGCs needed to serve the U.S. population.

Knowledge and opinions of the genetic counseling profession of high school students from underrepresented backgrounds.

The field of genetic counseling began in the 1960s, with young, white women quickly comprising the profession's core constituency. The field has made many efforts to increase its racial and ethnic diversity with little success. The 2019 Professional Status Survey, distributed by the National Society of Genetic Counselors, reported that 90% of the respondents identified as white, 95% as female, and 70% under the age of 40. This qualitative study explored the current career interests of high school students from underrepresented backgrounds as well as their understanding of and thoughts about the genetic counseling profession. Sixteen semi-structured interviews were performed with high school students from the Boston Preparatory Charter School. Major themes emerged reflecting that the participants (a) were science-minded and empathetic, (b) had not heard of genetic counseling but were interested in learning more about it, and (c) provided perspectives different from those historically over-represented in the genetic counseling workforce. Implications for genetic counselors include the need for improved recruitment strategies accessible to individuals of underrepresented backgrounds who might be interested in the profession and the importance of acknowledging that valuable contributions and improvements to the field could be made by such individuals. Future studies could encompass a larger sample size; explore the interests, opinions, and perspectives of high school students with minority identities other than racial and/or ethnic minority; or assess the success of current or new recruitment methods.

Errors in Genetic Testing: The Fourth Case Series

In this ongoing national case series, we document 25 new genetic testing cases in which tests were recommended, ordered, interpreted, or used incorrectly. An invitation to submit cases of adverse events in genetic testing was issued to the general National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv, the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group members, private genetic counselor laboratory groups, and via social media platforms (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). Examples highlighted in the invitation included errors in ordering, counseling, and/or interpretation of genetic testing and did not limit submissions to cases involving genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition. Clinical documentation, including pedigree, was requested. Twenty-six cases were accepted, and a thematic analysis was performed. Submitters were asked to approve the representation of their cases before manuscript submission. All submitted cases took place in the United States and were from cancer, pediatric, preconception, and general adult settings and involved both medical-grade and direct-to-consumer genetic testing with raw data analysis. In 8 cases, providers ordered the wrong genetic test. In 2 cases, multiple errors were made when genetic testing was ordered. In 3 cases, patients received incorrect information from providers because genetic test results were misinterpreted or because of limitations in the provider's knowledge of genetics. In 3 cases, pathogenic genetic variants identified were incorrectly assumed to completely explain the suspicious family histories of cancer. In 2 cases, patients received inadequate or no information with respect to genetic test results. In 2 cases, result interpretation/documentation by the testing laboratories was erroneous. In 2 cases, genetic counselors reinterpreted the results of people who had undergone direct-to-consumer genetic testing and/or clarifying medical-grade testing was ordered. As genetic testing continues to become more common and complex, it is clear that we must ensure that appropriate testing is ordered and that results are interpreted and used correctly. Access to certified genetic counselors continues to be an issue for some because of workforce limitations. Potential solutions involve action on multiple fronts: new genetic counseling delivery models, expanding the genetic counseling workforce, improving genetics and genomics education of nongenetics health care professionals, addressing health care policy barriers, and more. Genetic counselors have also positioned themselves in new roles to help patients and consumers as well as health care providers, systems, and payers adapt to new genetic testing technologies and models. The work to be done is significant, but so are the consequences of errors in genetic testing.

The past, present and future of service delivery in genetic counseling: Keeping up in the era of precision medicine.

Precision medicine aims to approach disease treatment and prevention with consideration of the variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle for each person. This focus on the individual is also key to the practice of genetic counseling, whereby foundational professional values prioritize informed and autonomous patient decisions regarding their genetic health. Genetic counselors are ideally suited to help realize the goals of the precision medicine. However, a limited genetic counseling workforce at a time in which there is a rapidly growing need for services is challenging the balance of supply and demand. This article provides historical context to better understand what has informed traditional models of genetic counseling and considers some of the current forces that require genetic counselors to adapt their practice. New service delivery models can improve access to genetic healthcare by overcoming geographical barriers, allowing genetic counselors to see a higher volume of patients and supporting other healthcare providers to better provide genetic services to meet the needs of their patients. Approaches to genetic counseling service delivery are considered with a forward focus to the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for genetic counselors in this age of precision health.

Counselees' Perspectives of Genomic Counseling Following Online Receipt of Multiple Actionable Complex Disease and Pharmacogenomic Results: a Qualitative Research Study.

Genomic applications raise multiple challenges including the optimization of genomic counseling (GC) services as part of the results delivery process. More information on patients' motivations, preferences, and informational needs are essential to guide the development of new, more efficient practice delivery models that capitalize on the existing strengths of a limited genetic counseling workforce. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a subset of counselees from the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative following online receipt of multiple personalized genomic test reports. Participants previously had either in-person GC (chronic disease cohort, n=20; mean age 60years) or telephone GC (community cohort, n=31; mean age 46.8years). Transcripts were analyzed using a Grounded Theory framework. Major themes that emerged from the interviews include 1) primary reasons for seeking GC were to clarify results, put results into perspective relative to other health-related concerns, and to receive personalized recommendations; 2) there is need for a more participant driven approach in terms of mode of GC communication (in-person, phone, video), and refining the counseling agenda pre-session; and 3) there was strong interest in the option of follow up GC. By clarifying counselees' expectations, views and desired outcomes, we have uncovered a need for a more participant-driven GC model when potentially actionable genomic results are received online.

Expanding the genetic counseling workforce: program directors' views on increasing the size of genetic counseling graduate programs.

Although there is an anticipated need for more genetic counselors, little is known about limitations at the graduate training level. We evaluated opportunities for growth of the genetic counseling (GC) workforce by exploring program directors' perspectives on increasing number of graduate trainees. Thirty US-based GC program directors (PDs) were recruited through the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors' listserv. Online surveys and semistructured phone interviews were used to explore factors impacting the expansion of the GC workforce. Twenty-five PDs completed the survey; 18 interviews were conducted. Seventy-three percent said they believe that the workforce is growing too slowly and the number of graduates should increase. Attitudes were mixed regarding whether the job market should be the main factor driving workforce expansion. Thematic analysis of transcripts identified barriers to program expansion in six categories: funding, accreditation requirements, clinical sites, faculty availability, applicant pool, and physical space. General consensus among participants indicates the importance of increasing the capacity of the GC workforce pipeline. Addressing funding issues, examining current accreditation requirements, and reevaluating current education models may be effective strategies to expanding GC program size. Future research on increasing the number of GC programs and a needs assessment for GC services are suggested.Genet Med 18 8, 842-849.

Report on an Investigation into an Entry Level Clinical Doctorate for the Genetic Counseling Profession and a Survey of the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors.

The master's degree is the required entry-level degree for the genetic counseling profession in the US and Canada. In 2012 the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD) passed resolutions supporting retention of the master's as the entry-level and terminal degree and opposing introduction of an entry-level clinical doctorate (CD) degree. An AGCPD workgroup surveyed directors of all 34 accredited training programs with the objective of providing the Genetic Counseling Advanced Degrees Task Force (GCADTF) with information regarding potential challenges if master's programs were required to transition to an entry-level CD. Program demographics, projected ability to transition to an entry-level CD, factors influencing ability to transition, and potential effects of transition on programs, students and the genetic counseling workforce were characterized. Two programs would definitely be able to transition, four programs would close, thirteen programs would be at risk to close and fourteen programs would probably be able to transition with varying degrees of difficulty. The most frequently cited limiting factors were economic, stress on clinical sites, and administrative approval of a new degree/program. Student enrollment under an entry-level CD model was projected to decrease by 26.2%, negatively impacting the workforce pipeline. The results further illuminate and justify AGCPD's position to maintain the master's as the entry-level degree.

Teaching genomic counseling: preparing the genetic counseling workforce for the genomic era.

Genetic counselors have a long-standing history of working on the clinical forefront of implementing new genetic technology. Genomic sequencing is no exception. The rapid advancement of genomic sequencing technologies, including but not limited to next generation sequencing approaches, across all subspecialties of genetic counseling mandates attention to genetic counselor training at both the graduate and continuing education levels. The current era provides a tremendous opportunity for counselors to become actively involved in making genomics more accessible, engaging the population in decisions to undergo sequencing and effectively translating genomic information to promote health and well-being. In this commentary, we explore reasons why genomic sequencing warrants particular consideration and put forward strategies for training program curricula and continuing education programs to meet this need.

Diversity in Genetic Counseling: Past, Present and Future

Despite decades of efforts to increase ethnic and racial diversity among genetic counselors, African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians, currently constituting almost one-third of Americans, remain only meagerly represented among genetic counselors at a level far under that seen in other health professions. This paper provides the first comprehensive effort to archive published and unpublished initiatives to increase ethnic and racial diversity in the profession. It also provides a review of national data and diversity initiatives in the health workforce in general. The paper reviews diversity initiatives in other health professions and suggests ways to improve recruitment and retention of underrepresented populations into genetic counseling. Increasing the diversity of the genetic counseling workforce stands not only to expand access to genetic services but also to improve the quality of genetic care provided to the American public.